Tuesday, April 28, 2009

It came as no shock to me today to hear that veteran GOP Senator Arlen Specter switched parties from Republican to Democrat. The Senator's actions merely solidified what I, and many other Conservatives already suspected, or knew: Sen. Specter is a Liberal. Previously a Republican in name only (RINO), Sen. Specter took intense heat for breaking with the Republican Caucus in voting for President Obama's economic stimulus bill. Sen. Specter faced a challenging re-election bid in 2010 and faced Republican opposition in the primary. The move to the Democratic Party has ensured Sen. Specter the support of President Obama and potentially the advantage of having no opponent in the primary. This may seem like it was a clever move by the Senator, and maybe it was, but I think this was just the ticket to outrage Republicans enough to defeat Specter in 2010 and get a true Conservative elected to the Senate. Sen. Specter's move to caucus with the Democrats, puts the Democratic Party one seat closer to the magic number of 60 seats, which would essentially make the filibuster a worthless option for the Republicans. It's worth it! A strong GOP candidate should be able to beat Specter in 2010 and a real Republican will finally hold the seat. Sen. Specter's action is good for the GOP on one side of the spectrum, but disgraceful on the other side. The Senator was elected as a Republican, presumably by a Republican base of constituents, and the act of switching parties undermines the election process, and defies the will of the people who elected him. The act of switching parties because of a disagreement with the caucus is contrary to the belief that American voters have, that the official that they elect will reflect the views that they campaigned on, and the views of the party. Maybe this view of a representative elector is naive in this day and age, but it is, in my view, essential to the democratic function of electing our public officials. The fact that an elected official can so easily switch parties to try to save face does nothing to strengthen the faith and the trust that Americans have in the election process and it is little wonder why so few Americans actually go out to vote. Still, I think this is a positive step for the GOP, and time will tell if this was a smart move on Specter's part, 2010 is coming fast.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

I generally try to avoid attacking President Obama on this blog because this blog isn't about Obama and because it may potentially turn-off any non-conservative readers that I may have, diminishing my goal of presenting the conservative side of things to liberals. The actions that President Obama has taken over the last few days has made this very difficult for me and I really have to President Obama's patriotism to question. I am not saying that President Obama does not love this country and I am not saying that he is not patriotic, but I will say that he does not exemplify the degree of patriotism that I would like the President of this country to have. This point has been evident since the campaign in the 'little' things, like Obama refusing to wear a flag lapel, Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and Obama's associations with known domestic terrorists. Now President Obama has taken it upon himself to represent America as an arrogant country and apologize to the world for all of our 'mistakes'. GOP-take a stand and demand that President Obama stop weakening our country with apologies and stop misrepresenting us as arrogant and as the source of all of the world's problems. At the same time, President Obama's administration has released CIA memos that significantly weaken the country's defenses and the memos that were released only present one side of the torture story. The memos portray the fact that the Bush Administration allowed torture to take place contrary to the Geneva Convention. The administration on the other hand conveniently failed to release memos that prove that the harsh interrogation tactics prevented a 9/11 magnitude attack in L.A., and the memos also leave out the fact that a bi-partisan committee of Congress was aware of the interrogation techniques and raised no objections as described in the Washington Post . Members of the Committee included both Democrats and Republicans, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. There is strong evidence to suggest, and former CIA Chief Hayden suggests that the release of the 'torture' memos has already been utilized by Al Qaeda to recruit new members, members whose main goals are to bring destruction to America. Anyone who is willing to release memos in a political move to discredit the former Administration and Party with a total disregard to the security threat that it may pose does not love the United States as much as a president should in my opinion. Now, in a huge flip-flop of opinions, President Obama has indicated that he is open to the prosecution of Bush Administration officials who approved the harsh interrogation methods, as seen on MSNBC today. This is an unprecedented move that further diminishes the countries safety and will set a precedent for future administrations that they cannot be tough on terrorism without the threat of prosecution. This week has been tough on Republicans because we have seen our country reduced to apologies, we have seen our President accept the gift of a book that slanders the United States, and worst yet, we have seen our security take a severe blow. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was on Hannity last night and offers his thoughts on President Obama's apology tour, check it out below.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Today I attended a public address by the Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Scalia spoke in AlbuquerqueNew Mexico, at an event co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the University of New Mexico School of Law. Justice Scalia spoke about Constitutional Interpretation and made a strong and compelling argument for the originalism interpretation theory which suggests that the Constitution of the United States does not change, and that it can only be changed through the amendment process. Justice Scalia was nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President Reagan and he assumed office on September 26, 1986. Justice Scalia is a self described conservative and serves as an example to conservatives today in regard to how the Constitution should be interpreted when applied to court cases and controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc. The Justice argues that the idea of the Constitution as a 'living' document began with the Warren Court in the 1950's. The idea of the Constitution as a living document suggests that the Constitution must be flexible and change with the times. Justice Scalia's concern with the living document theory is that the United States is in danger of having a Supreme Court that will reflect the will of the people, which he suggests is the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. The Supreme Court was designed to protect the individual from the majority and to ensure that legislatures do not impose the will of the people if it is contrary to the Constitution. The originalism theory, also known as the original intent theory looks for the understanding of the Amendment, or law, when it was adopted, as opposed to interpreting and changing the Constitution to make it mean what you want it to mean. Justice Scalia uses abortion and gay marriage as the main examples for his argument. He contends that the original drafters of the Bill of Rights never would have thought that they intended the right to have an abortion to be included within the right to privacy. He also makes the assertion that the drafters of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined that the Amendment would be used a means to make gay marriage a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Justice Scalia represents the conservative ideology of the Supreme Court and is a big proponent of judicial restraint, State sovereignty, and the original intent theory. Conservatives today should study the theories that Justice Scalia applies to his interpretations of the Constitution and strive to exemplify the same principles.

Monday, April 13, 2009

On top of every other initiative, the economy, health care reform, two wars, etc, the Obama administration is also going to tackle immigration. This year! Reuters reports that Presidents Obama intends to begin the reform as early as May of this year and the plan calls for a "search for a path to legalize the status of millions of illegal immigrants." This sounds a lot like amnesty. The term 'amnesty' has become one of those words that is tossed around the political arena extensively, but no-one really knows what it means. In this context, and for the purpose of my argument, amnesty refers to actions taken by the government to make a large group of illegal immigrants American Citizens without the immigrants participating in the necessary steps to become legal. This is a thorny issue in regard to the GOP because past Republican administrations have attempted versions of amnesty, and it is difficult to determine how the electorate will respond to the action. There has been speculation that the issue of immigration reform is 'good' for Democrats and 'bad' for Republicans. This is a logical argument because Democrats are typically portrayed as having compassion on illegal immigrants and Republicans are seen as racist and as wanting to round-up all the illegals and deport them immediately. The Democrats want to use immigration reform to make them look good and to make the Republicans look bad.

The Democrats want to use immigration reform as a way to strengthen their electorate and strengthen their Hispanic base.Bob Shrum, a Democrat consultant argues my point for me in the following quote he made on Andrea Mitchell’s NBC News program regarding whether or not he thought President Obama would move on immigration reform, “I think they're going to move on immigration. I hope the Republicans fulminate against it because they'll get to the point where they won't get a single Hispanic vote. Go ahead and make my decade, turn Texas into a Democratic state.” The Democrats want to move on immigration in an effort to “dare” the Republicans to take a stance on the issue that would isolate the Hispanic vote and make the election of Democrats that much easier. The GOP must approach this issue delicately. If GOP leaders do not take a stance for tough border control, they will isolate the GOP base and they may suffer at the polls. If they do take a strong stance on border security and illegal workers, the GOP will isolate the Hispanic vote, and a Republican candidate cannot win without the Hispanic vote. The GOP needs to demonstrate that they have compassion for illegal immigrants and those who wish to flea oppressive countries and countries with no economic growth, but that they support legal immigration. The GOP needs to draft a plan that would make the legal entry into the United States more viable, so that the immigrants that enter this country are accounted for and do not pose a threat to the country, in terms of bringing illegal drugs into the country, or in terms of terrorists using our vast border with Mexico to get into the county. The GOP needs to demonstrate that we don’t mind that immigrants find jobs in this country as long as they are properly documented and pay the appropriate taxes, etc. There is a way for Republicans to support strong border control while still appealing to Hispanic voters. I don’t think the GOP is going to lose Texas anytime soon, but I still caution the GOP to approach the issue of immigration reform with extreme caution.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday ruled in a unanimous decision that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. This would not have come as a surprise to me if it were California we were talking about, as California is a very liberal state, but Iowa? Come on! The GOP needs to take a strong stance on the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The Iowa Supreme Court and other courts across the country have used the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to find statutes that limit civil unions to male/female couples unconstitutional. Republican leaders must argue that this is a flawed assessment of the statute. Laws that outlaw homosexual couples from entering a civil union do not deny any individual the right to marry. If Steve wants to marry Mark, the state can deny him, but he can always go marry Jane. He is not being denied the right to marry; he is being denied the right to marry Steve just as the state may deny the marriage between brothers and sisters, and marriage to more than one spouse, a.k.a polygamy. The GOP needs to stand up for initiatives like the Proposition 8 bill that made gay marriage illegal in California. The issue of gay marriage will not go away any time soon, and the GOP cannot hide from it anymore. During the 2008 campaign McCain did not take a strong position on gay marriage but President Obama did, stating in a response to the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Questionnaire: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."It’s time for Republicans to hold President Obama accountable for that statement and push for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Now, I’m not so naïve as to believe that a Constitutional ban on marriage is going to happen anytime soon, it didn’t happen with a Republican in office, but the fact that Obama will not act on the issue despite the pressure will give Republicans an issue to get voters passionate about in 2012. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 and President Clinton signed it into law. DOMA defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. In addition, although it leaves each state free to define marriage however it likes, DOMA also affirms that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The United States has recognized that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but the states still have discretion on the matter. A Constitutional ban, although a drastic move, would eliminate the ability of a state to allow gay marriage. A Constitutional ban might be drastic, but it might be the only way to preserve the “sanctity” of marriage and the religious and social connotations that goes with it.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

A Gallup poll conducted at the end of 2008 indicates the forerunners for the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election. The poll is several months old, but I think the data is still relevant and accurate, considering the election is three years away. The data indicates that Sarah Palin is in fact the forerunner, closely followed by Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. Please see my past posts on Palin and check back soon for my thoughts on Romney, Huckabee, and other potential candidates.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, recently signed a bill into law repealing the death penalty in New Mexico. The Republicans now have a foot hold on the Democrats and now have a platform to run against Democrats in upcoming elections. In New Mexico, specifically, a Republican challenger can now use the promise of returning the death penalty to the courts as a platform against Lt. Governor Diane Denish. Recent polls in New Mexico indicate that the electorate is split on whether or not the death penalty should be an option in homicide and rape cases. The majorities of Republicans are in favor of the death penalty and will likely be passionate about a candidate who will fight to bring the sentence back. Governor Richardson's reasons for repealing the death penalty undermine the legal system, take power away from the courts and put the lives of police officers in jeopardy as Bernalillo Sheriff Darren White has made very clear recently. The death penalty is a controversial issue that will ignite passion, and anger, and create a good race for New Mexico governor in 2010.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Let me start off by saying that I should have written this post a while back because an understanding of why John McCain lost the presidential election in 2008 is essential to understanding what the GOP must now do in order to re-energize and rebuild. I will also say now that this post is entirely based on my opinion on what happened, based on my perceptions as a student of politics and as a volunteer at McCain Victory Headquarters in Albuquerque during the campaign. I won't be citing any sources or referencing any blogs in this post, because I am basically just rambling about what I think the Republicans did wrong.So why did John McCain lose? There are the obvious answers that most people attribute the loss to, like the economy, President Bush's image, Barack Obama's charisma, etc. My explanation, and of course I am not claiming to be the only one with this opinion, is that Republicans were simply not excited enough to go out and vote. Republicans made the fatal mistake of not promoting and making social issues a major focus of the election. George W. Bush in both of his campaigns was able to make social issues such as: abortion, gun control, the death penalty, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc., the focus of attention and he made sure to stir up Republican voters enough to ensure that not only would they go out and vote, but they would take their families and friends with them. He made sure that Republicans were angry that government wanted to take control of health care, or take away the right to own guns, or murder unborn babies. Anger=passion, and passion gets people to the polls. McCain was unable to stir the pot, no-one was angry that Barack Obama was the single most liberal Senator in the senate. No one was angry that Obama was in support of the D.C. ban against hand guns, or that he supported legislation as a state senator in Illinois that would prevent a doctor from saving the lives of babies who were born after a botched abortion. These issues were not put on the table and Republicans were not mobilized. As a result we saw a record number of Catholics and Christians voting for Obama, when in 2004 they came out strong for Bush. As a volunteer for McCain's campaign I made hundreds of phone calls and spoke with many Republicans who stated that they were not fans of McCain and that they were not going to vote. This seems to have been the popular option across the country. McCain was overly moderate during his campaign and shyed away from the controversial social issues because he wanted to appeal to independents and soft democrats, but in doing so he isolated his base. Above everything else, McCain lost in '08 because the Republicans stayed home. In 2012 the GOP needs a candidate who will get the voters to the polls.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Governor Bobby Jindal's name has been circulating around political circles with speculation high that he may be the GOP's best chance to defeat President Obama in the 2012 election. The GOP is desperately looking for a Republican figure who represents a stark difference from the stereotypical, and recently much despised, Republican. Governor Jindal may be our guy. The first thing some people might notice about Jindal, and I will admit that this is the first thing I noticed when I saw him, is that he is Indian. Jindal was born in Baton, Rouge Louisiana, but his parents were born in India. This is not to suggest that the Republicans have essentially tapped him as a potential contender in 2012 simply because he is a minority. Gov. Jindal has demonstrated as Governor of Louisiana that he can be a strong leader despite the drastic disasters that his state has experienced over the last few years. Gov. Jindal is also considered a good, confident speaker, and moderate enough to appeal to soft Democrats and Independents, that is until he delivered the rebuttal to Obama's speech on Tuesday night.

The Republicans tapped Gov. Jindal to deliver the rebuttal speech about two weeks in advance and he had ample time to prepare it. Political careers can be defined from one speech, we saw this when President Obama made his now famous speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 on behalf of Senator John Kerry. After President Obama's electrifying speech, many commentators predicted that he would be a strong candidate in 2008, and clearly he was. Gov. Jindal was given a good opportunity after President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress, but many think Gov. Jindal did not hit his speech out of the park. GOP commentators and Democrat commentators alike have described Jindal's speech as 'childish' and as a 'disaster,' describing it as lacking character, and not really making a strong statement to boost the image of the GOP. Still, many people defended Jindal, and still think he will make a strong candidate in 2012 against President Obama. Gov. Jindal is still relatively unknown across America and many questions still remain about him and his policies. Do you think Gov. Jindal will make a good candidate or do you think Republicans are simply pushing him as a candidate because he is a minority? Was his speech a disaster, or did it just pale in comparison to a huge speech from the President in front of a joint session of Congress? Could anyone have looked good going after President Obama?

Please visit Governor Jindal's home page where you can view the entire rebuttal speech and learn more about the governor:

Thursday, February 19, 2009

It has become increasingly easy for Democrats and some Republicans to blame the loss of John McCain in the 2008 election on his running mate, Sarah Palin. Since the election I cannot count the times that I have overheard people discussing the election and placing all the blame on Sarah Palin. Immediately following the election, most of the major news networks were also quick to blame Palin, to the point that she became very frustrated and appeared almost unstable in her post election interviews. I reject the notion that Governor Sarah Palin is the number one reason that Senator John McCain lost the 2008 Election.

After the election, I spent over 6 hours analyzing exit poll data from the election. Exit polls are taken by random voters immediately after they cast their vote. The data is compiled from polling locations nationwide and in this election cycle, 17,836 voters were polled, making the data extremely precise and reliable. The data strongly suggests that Palin was not the reason McCain lost. One question asked, "Who is Qualified To Be President if Necessary?" 91% of respondents who voted for Obama answered "Only Biden," while 96% of those who voted for McCain answered "Only Palin." More Republicans thought Palin would be qualified to be president then Democrats thought Biden would be qualified. Another question asked, "Is Biden Qualified to be President if Necessary?" Only 71% of those who voted for Obama answered "yes" while 91% of those who voted for McCain answered "yes" to the question, "Is Palin Qualified to be President if Necessary?" This indicates that those who voted for McCain, mostly Republicans, had more confidence in Palin than those who voted for Obama, mostly Democrats, had confidence in Biden. This is only a fraction of data that indicates that Palin did not have a negative effect on McCain's bid for the presidency. I know from a personal perspective that Palin energized the GOP and Republicans who were not excited about McCain became excited when Palin was chosen as the running mate. I strongly believe that Palin was a positive factor of McCain's ticket. The exit poll data can be found at:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p2

Monday, February 16, 2009

The Republican Party for years attempted to establish themselves as advocates for a small government and a free market. The current stimulus bill, pushed heavily by President Obama, exemplifies the exact nature of what Republicans need to stand up against if they are to re-establish themselves as fiscal conservatives. The Bush administration passed a massive stimulus bill and it was heavily criticized by conservative talk show hosts including Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. President Bush's bill put money into the economy immediately and banks quickly received money in order for them to continue lending. It is still not clear whether or not the bill was effective. The difference between President Bush's bill and the one that President Obama proposed is that President Obama had ample time to get it right. President Obama claimed to have been working on a solution for the economy since before he was even elected, and this is what he came up with? Minutes after his Secretary of the Treasury announced the specifics of the Obama plan the stock market responded by plunging dramatically. President Obama promised a new era of transparency and proclaimed that a copy of the stimulus bill would be available online for the public to read before Congress voted on it. This did not happen. The bill is full of pork and pet projects for the Democrats. The Republicans were given very little say in the bill and this bill was not bi-partisan. The bill contains measures that will not put money into the economy for another 3-4 year. We need money in the economy now. The jobs that it will create will only be temporary and the average citizen who has recently lost a job will likely not want to take these jobs. I agree that something must be done to help the economy, but it has to be a good plan, lets get it right. Not a single House Republican voted for the bill, and only three Republican Senators voted for it. This is the first step in the Republicans re-establishing themselves as fiscal conservatives, and it's about time.

Monday, February 9, 2009

There has been a lot of talk lately in the media about the lack of leadership in the GOP and speculation that talk radio hosts including Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are taking control and becoming party leaders. I disagree with the notion that conservative talk radio hosts are attempting to become party leaders and I would argue that the hosts are simply providing a voice of opposition to President Obama's policies. Rush Limbaugh has consistently been cited as the leader of the talk show coup against Republican leaders, and that should come as no surprise when considering that Limbaugh has been the most-listened-to talk show host since the mid 1990's. Limbaugh has an estimated 14 million listener base and recently signed a contract earning him $38 million a year through 2016. Limbaugh has also stirred the most controversy since the inauguration of President Obama, stating that "he hopes Obama fails." The media has been swift in playing Limbaugh's quote and criticizing him for not giving the President a chance to prove himself, but it is Limbaugh who has not been given a chance to criticize the new President. Taken out of context, Limbaugh's statement does seem premature and irresponsible in the sense that all Americans are depending on President Obama succeeding as President for the good of the country, but Limbaugh's statement is perfectly clear in the view of Conservatives who do not want to see America transformed into a socialist country. Limbaugh's statement in its entirety is in defense of American ideals of democracy, capitalism, and the free market. Limbaugh made it known that if President Obama's policies are going to turn the country into a socialist county, that he hopes President Obama fails, and so do I. President Obama was elected with a record indicating that he was the single most Liberal Senator in the Senate and it is only natural that liberal policies are going to be implemented. Conservatives must have the opportunity to oppose the Liberal agenda and it is no surprise that we would want Liberal policies to fail.Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been critical of the stimulus bill that President Obama has been exhaustively advocating. Sean Hannity hosts a syndicated radio program on hundreds of stations across the country and hosts an hour long program weekdays on the Fox News Channel. Hannity has been opposed to the stimulus bill since President Obama began pushing for it, claiming that the bill is polluted with pork spending and will do very little to improve the economy. Limbaugh has dubbed the stimulus bill the "Porkulus" bill and urges Republican Senators daily not to vote for the bill. House Republicans stood strong and not a single Republican member of Congress voted for it. Conservative Talk Show Host's opposition to liberal policies should not be seen as an attempt to exert control over the GOP and should be seen as constructive criticism. Conservative Talk Show Hosts are rallying the Conservative base and putting social issues back in the spotlight, allowing Republicans to shine. There is a visible lack of leadership in the GOP, but Limbaugh and Hannity are not trying to fill the positions, they are attempting to educate their listeners so that those listeners can then select the new leadership that can rebuild the GOP.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Michael Steven Steele was recently elected as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele makes history as the first African American to hold the position.

Steele was elected as Maryland's Lieutenant Governor in 2002 despite the fact that a Republican had not been elected to the State's executive office in close to 40 years. As Lieutenant Governor Steele focused on reforming the state’s Minority Business Enterprise program and chairing Governor Ehrlich’s Commission on Quality Education in Maryland.

Steele has established himself within the Republican Party as a strong public speaker and he was selected to deliver the counter speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention against then Senator, Barack Obama. Steele ran for a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Maryland in 2006 but was defeated by the Democrat opponent.

The election of Michael Steele as the chairman of the RNC is a positive step forward to rebuilding the GOP's image across the United States. The Republican Party is often criticized for not being representative of African Americans and other minority groups. An African American now leads the entire Party and African Americans may be more inclined to identify with the Party. Steele was also a critic of many of President Bush's policies and actively spoke against the Iraq War, often times referring to the initial phases of the War as a failure. Steele was also a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's handling of hurricane Katrina. Steele's willingness to speak out against Republican mistakes and view-points may show Democrats and Independents that Republicans are willing to compromise on issues and learn from past mistakes.

The emergence of Michael Steele as the chairman of the RNC may be the first step to rebuilding the GOP.

Hello and welcome to my new blog. This blog is dedicated to the analysis of the convoluted task that the Republican Party faces in rebuilding their party in order to win elections. The 2006 midterm elections overwhelmingly demonstrated that Americans are tired of Republicans and the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The 2008 general election reaffirmed the sentiment that the American electorate is willing to give Democrats the chance to implement policies that will have a positive effect on issues pertaining to the country. The 2006 and 2008 elections made one thing very clear: Republicans must do something to show the electorate that they can be a positive force for the country. The image of the Republican Party is distorted and it is going to take drastic measures to realign that image.

This blog will offer my ideas on what the Republican Party must do to enhance their image and reclaim majorities in the House and Senate and begin winning elections. I intend to produce several posts a week that will focus on issues such as: Who will emerge as the new leaders of the GOP? Do Republicans like Governor Sarah Palin and can she be elected? What major platform issues should the Republicans focus on? Is President Obama performing well, and should the Republican attack his policies and decisions? And many more topics that may arise in this ever changing political climate.

Please check back often and post as many comments as you would like. I am open to criticism from Liberal view points and I would love suggestions for future post topics.

Fox News Politics

About Me

I am a senior at the University of New Mexico. I am graduating in May of 2009 with a major in Political Science and a minor in Professional Writing. I have focused most of my academic study on politics and I have taken well over 60 credit hours worth of political science courses. My free time is usually consumed with keeping up on current political events and reading about past political events. Currently my favorite subject is U.S. Presidents and specifically their campaigns.